In the explanation of given phenomena, no other things and no other grounds of explanation can be employed than those which stand in connection with the given phenomena according to the known laws of experience.

I wold like to contribute to your issue about Sexual Selection. I think that the why for Sexual Selection is that Sex it's the skill of speciation acquired in the process of natural selection (Eukaryotes). This implies that there aren't truly or absolute asexual species. For instance, in asexual lizards mating behaviors are still seen.

I hope that the following 4 posts came to give many of the answers that people continues struggling to give. Those posts are:

The peacocks were feral, which suggests that they used to be or are recently descended from domestic peacocks - using birds whose traits-of-interest might be the result of human selective breeding seems kind of crazy.

I read the first of your blog post and after 30 seconds wanted to bang my head against a hard surface repeatedly. When you write:

[...] you need to think in species as an end by itself, this means that Prokaryotes have no species like mammals laid no eggs! Speciation it's an acquired skill, it's so simple that is annoying how people don't see it!

you are proving that you do not understand what a species is.You seem to think of it a nice little case to check for each organism in nature. Something that would preexist like a platonician ideal, with in your case the possibility to opt-out by checking the 'none of the above' section.Species are only a human constructio that is convenient for us humans to understand the world, but which has no special biological value. Talking about Panthera tigris is the same as talking about Chairs or books. If the animal you are facing belong to said category you can draw some useful conclusions about it (like: in absence of a solid barrier between the 2 of us, I should quickly leave the premises before I get to be seen as dinner) or I can sit on it, or I can read it (I let you assume which description comes which each category). But you won't know everything about a specific individual and variations can be very important. So us, as humans have used those species to help understand the world, and some rules are convenient to fit objects in one species or another, but none are universal, because the concept of species is an artificial construction that has no natural meaning. Hence defining the ability to form species as an end in itself is showing how wrong you are. I stop there before I feel the need to shred my brain into small pieces. The stupid it burns.

Patrick

Science has proof without any certainty. Creationists have certainty without
any proof. (Ashley Montague)

The first one uses the expression of "True Species and Speciation" when it speaks about Sex (Stanley 1975)!

Hence defining the ability to form species as an end in itself is showing how wrong you are.

I never understand why Speciation can't be a skill. You really seem a little bit out of your mind, but you didn't give a good argument against speciation as an Acquired Skill. Maybe you didn't understand, I said speciation, not a specific specie.

Don't tell me that you are so naive to believe that sexual selection it's all about increasing genetic variation?

I stop there before I feel the need to shred my brain into small pieces. The stupid it burns.

This quote it's typically religious. You didn't read all the posts, however you said I'm wrong. You are like a Creationist that doesn't listening because first of all, it has an idea to defend.

Sorry my friend, but you are the one in the wrong side of the road. Sorry my friend, but nature didn't exist to please you or to conform with your ideas. Sorry my friend, but more and more scientists are seeing that speciation it's more than a handy classification method. I'm very sorry, but in the end you will have to review your religious convictions.

The first one uses the expression of "True Species and Speciation" when it speaks about Sex (Stanley 1975)!

I see that the last paper is from 2010, but both the other are from 1975, maybe, just maybe scientist have worked in the last 35 years and change some of the old paradigm....

ruiseixas wrote:I never understand why Speciation can't be a skill. You really seem a little bit out of your mind, but you didn't give a good argument against speciation as an Acquired Skill. Maybe you didn't understand, I said speciation, not a specific specie.

Don't tell me that you are so naive to believe that sexual selection it's all about increasing genetic variation?

No. never said that. It certainly change and helps disseminate gene, but I am fairly certain that it is not all about increasing genetic diversity. Although that can be one consequence of sex.

ruiseixas wrote:This quote it's typically religious. You didn't read all the posts, however you said I'm wrong. You are like a Creationist that doesn't listening because first of all, it has an idea to defend.

Nope just pointing you error. A species is not a distinct category that organism belong to or not. It is only a convenient way of classification used by humans to think and aggregates objects, but when you look at genetic make up of organism, the definition of a species is a whole different thing. Where does the dog end and where does the wolf starts? Are E. coli and Shigella flexneri 2 different species or not? And what about Salmonella spp. 2,7 or thousands of species?The fact that you are defending a theory based on the existence of species a strong categories, rather than just fluid groups convenient to describe shows that you have a problem. And that is true in eukaryotes as well as in prokaryotes.

I have no religious bone to defend, I am picking at your ideas showing that they are flawed from their premises. But why would I read all your pages whan it is clear from the start that you do not have a clue about what you are saying?

Patrick

Science has proof without any certainty. Creationists have certainty without
any proof. (Ashley Montague)

I see that the last paper is from 2010, but both the other are from 1975, maybe, just maybe scientist have worked in the last 35 years and change some of the old paradigm....

Well, I see a lot of people quoting Darwin, and is writings come from 1859. For instance, The Selfish Gene it's from 1976, and Dawkins basically have been writing more of the same. You only need to think in his loved Game Theory paradigm to see how aged it is. Conclusion, weak argument!

A species is not a distinct category that organism belong to or not. It is only a convenient way of classification used by humans to think and aggregates objects, but when you look at genetic make up of organism, the definition of a species is a whole different thing. Where does the dog end and where does the wolf starts? Are E. coli and Shigella flexneri 2 different species or not? And what about Salmonella spp. 2,7 or thousands of species?

If speciation it's a skill, I don't see how the number of species can be a problem. You see species as a classification but you don't realize that too many or too few are also classifications. It's very simple, and I already told, I'm not supporting any form of classification, this means that your question only makes sense if you think in it as a form of classification, I'm supporting speciation as a skill. You are thinking like an alchemist, where your question it's like, in water were Oxygen starts and Hydrogen ends... I'm thinking more like a Chemistry, saying that there are different elements...

You should take the example of Classic physics vs Quantum physics. Here your question about E. coli and Shigella flexneri 2 it's no more than a Schrödinger's cat Paradox. It makes sense because you still thinking in a classic and continuous way.

I'm not supporting any kind of classification, so I don't have to give the answer to your own created problem. My point it's about the skill, not about a particular form of classification!

No. never said that. It certainly change and helps disseminate gene, but I am fairly certain that it is not all about increasing genetic diversity. Although that can be one consequence of sex.

If you have read my posts you should notice that I give a new interpretation for sex, but in any case, thinking in sex as a mere group of consequences, only serves to fill BBC DOCs that aren't more than entertaining.

Bottom line: If you don't understand for what it serves how can you say what it means?

According to sexual selection, a female can have a preference for a mate with a feature such as a long tail. Over a long period of time, sexual selection is believed to be able to develop a particular feature to a great extent.For selection to work, a number of things are thought to be typically required. Firstly, the male must have an aesthetic feature. Secondly, the female must have a preference for that particular aesthetic feature. Thirdly, the female must be able to have the opportunity to view a number of different males before mating. Fourthly, the female must be able to have some control over which male mates with her.

Sexual selection isn't even necessarily sexual, it's just selection of traits that don't necessarily increase survival chances but definitely increase reproductive chances. A more prolific bacterial strain is undergoing sexual selection. The term dates back to before asexual reproduction was really considered in natural systems.